Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 17:09:49 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Self-consciousness"

    Mark alias Squonk

    3 Nov. 2003 you wrote:

    Bo prev:
    > We have Pirsig's letter where he draws the
    > intellectual line with the Ancient Greeks, but it sounds as only
    > from necessity lest it would stretch away into absurdity.

    Mark:
    > The 'line' as you determine it is not drawn. There can be no such line
    > as no one was there to make a note of it.

    Pirsig is drawing a broad line.

        ....I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when
        one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.*

        * The argument that Oriental cultures would not be classified
        as intellectual is avoided by pointing out that the Oriental
        cultures developed an intellectual level independently of the
        Greeks during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000
        to 600 B.C. (These dates may be off.) The argument that the
        MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some kind of other
        level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ that I
        know of that leads to this conclusion.

    He says that the Orientals developed intellect at 1000-600 BC ....
    .....independently OF THE GREEKS which means that he sees the
    Greeks as developing intellect. It frustrates me a little that Pirsig so
    reasonably focus on the Greeks as (one) cradle of intellect, but
    upholds the impossible "symbol-manipulation" definition (which is
    nothing but language).

    Mark 6-11-03: Hello Bo, Pirsig in letter to Paul:
    'Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," that can
    mean thought about anything and the word, "intellectual," where abstract thought
    itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may be assumed that the
    Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be doubted that theirs was
    an intellectual culture.'
    The Greeks did not develop Intellect, (because symbolic manipulation has been
    around for tens of thousands of years) but they did developed an
    intellectually dominated culture.

    > What Pirsig indicates is
    > that thinking goes back before the Ancient Greeks,

    He does and also indicates that it goes back before the social level
    ...even before the biological one!!!

    Mark 6-11-03: Bo, not at all, Pirsig letter to Paul:
    'You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest meaning
    can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled
    manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and
    which behave according to rules of their own.'
    This skill (art)? was honed in Greek and other cultures, but the manipulation
    preceded such cultures.

    > but the Ancient
    > Greeks established an Intellectually dominated culture. There is no
    > line drawn, merely an indication of when records began to display the
    > dominance of Intellectual patterns.

    According to Pirsig intellect only became dominant in the Western
    culture after WW1. ZMM brings an excellent account of the
    emergence of intellect. To say that there were patterns before the
    levels makes the MOQ go haywire. ....however, from intellect's p.o.v.
    everything is "intellect", that is your problem IMO!

    Mark 6-11-03: Bo, You are suggesting i am an idealist here. I use the term
    'patterns if Intellectual value' for those experiences others may call ideas,
    and 'patterns of social value' for those experiences others may call duties,
    obligations, etc. Thus, i am not a hard boiled idealist, i am a hard boiled
    valuist. I can have an intellectual pattern which represents duty, obligation, etc.
    But not a duty, obligation, etc. which represents an intellectual pattern.
    So, the two levels coexist independently and evolve simultaneously, with a cross
    over in domination when intellectual patterns dominate social patterns - this
    was about the time of the Ancient Greeks in the West, and the time of Asian
    questioning of Vedic tradition in the East.

    > This does not exclude thinking as
    > an intellectual activity, because writing, language and the
    > manipulation of symbols is an intellectual activity, and is a matter

    Language is manipulation of symbols and if that is "intellect" ...well be
    my guest.

    Mark 6-11-03: Bo, early language is low-level intellect. Later languages,
    (Symbolic manipulation beyond narrative and rhetoric - maths, geometry, algebra,
    binary) is high level intellect. The former is open to Social domination and
    the later is rather austere in it's social value. Interesting point: high level
    symbolic manipulation is artistic and based on intuited harmony, and not
    truth.

    > The character if patterns which dominate society in Ancient
    > Greek culture are therefore extensions of a process already well under
    > way, but not yet dominating social patterns - the pinnacle of
    > mathematics and abstraction can therefore be well described as
    > Intellectual art - the response of Intellectual patterns to Quality.

    I'll comment when I understand this, but thanks for sticking to the
    MOQ. You may find me a PITA, but at least you care.

    Bo

    Mark 6-11-03: There is a misspelling here, 'The character if patterns...'
    should read, 'The character of patterns.'
    The character of patterns which dominate society in Ancient Greek culture are
    therefore extensions of a process already well under way, [That is to say
    Symbolic manipulation in language and art had been gaining momentum for a long
    time previously - remember Pirsig and the Egyptians] but not yet dominating
    social patterns [Until the Ancient Greek literature] - the pinnacle of mathematics
    and abstraction can therefore be well described as Intellectual art [Symbolic
    manipulation of a very high aesthetic sophistication] - the response of
    Intellectual patterns to Quality. [The preselection of coherent patterns based on
    harmony = ZMM]

    One of the reasons behind 'The edge of Chaos' was to try and contribute to an
    understanding of how all this works. I kind of hoped that after that i could
    shut up for a bit.
    Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 17:12:56 GMT